Lawren

  FIGUEROA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES   JULY 14, 2008   NACHURA, J.   SUBJECT AREA: Estoppel by laches   NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari   FACTS: Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide . The RTC found him guilty. In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner, for the first time, questioned RTCs jurisdiction on the case.   The CA in affirming the decision of the RTC, ruled that the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC—the trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity.     The petitioner, for his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at any time even for the first time on appeal.   As undue delay is further absent herein, the principle of...

CA Decision February 13, 1969 - GUILTY affirming CFI decision CFI Decision signed July 25, 1966; decision promulgated and read to the accused August 23, 1966 Judge retired July 31, 1966 Cannot question the jurisdiction of the court; it even appealed he decision to CA.  JUAN VERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.  G.R. No. L-31218 February 18, 1970 1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS; EXCEPTION TO GENERAL RULE ON NULLITY OF JUDGMENT IF JUDGE RETIRED PRIOR TO PROMULGATION OF SENTENCE. — Petitioners and intervenors can not now raise the issue that the sentence rendred by Judge Surtida is null and void on the ground that he already retired previous to the promulgation of the sentence. For appeals were taken thereon by herein petitioners and intervenor to respondent Court of appeals without ever questioning the decision or jurisidicction of said Judge in the case. As already established in this jurisdiction, after a certain stage, a jurisdictional question, even if on its face meritorious, would not nece...

  Doctrine of laches bars a party from attacking the jurisdiction has been extended to criminal cases. Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.   SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL.,  Plaintiffs-appellees, -versus-  MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY ALIAS GAVINO SIBONGHANOY, ET AL.,  Defendants , MANILA SUR...

The doctrine of laches is also called the   doctrine of estoppel by laches   or the   doctrine of stale demands . In other textbooks, it is also called the   doctrine of slumbering/sleeping on one's rights . The doctrine of laches is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. (G.R. No. 152145. March 30, 2004) The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle applied to promote but never to defeat justice. Thus, where laches is invoked against a plaintiff by reason of the latter's failure to come to court within the statutory period provided in the law, the doctrine of laches will not be taken against him where the defendant is shown to have promised from time to time to grant the relief sought for. Again, We have...